Grabiela Franco

(323) 854-3691
“Undocumented Latinos and the Acceptance of Unfair Employment: A look Through the
Lens of Migration”
Sociology 103 B- Research Methods
Final Proposal
T.A Jin You
Professor Gabriela Sandoval

Introduction
What are the main components causing Latino immigrants to accept unfair
employment in Los Angeles? Immigration is the movement of non-native people into
a country to settle there. It is something that affects the daily lives of ever
yone. This paper attempts to draw a relationship between migration and unfair em
ployment. Taking a look at why Latinos migrate to the U.S can help us understand
why they end up accepting terrible employment in the U.S. By terrible employmen
t, I mean jobs that no one else wants, or jobs that offer no benefits, no advanc
ement. Two factors are being analyzed throughout the paper: immigration and empl
oyment in the U.S. This question is important socially because this issue is onl
y rising. Latino immigrants are practically slaves because the compensation they
receive for their work does not come close to how much diligent work it costs t
hem. Immigrants worldwide are being mistreated, and we in America, are too blind
ed/ignorant to notice, and even if we do notice,it benefits us to remain silent.
We have silenced the voices of these poor, working people, and this paper attem
pts to say enough. The answer to this question will bring a better understanding
of migration, of harsh work conditions, in hopes of causing a decline in discri
mination. I will go about this by digging into the bodies of literature found to
support my theory, by conducting my very own research, using interviews as my p
referred method, discussing the pre-test, discussing the results, and finally co
ncluding my main points.
Key Terms: Latino/a, Immigration, Labor in the U.S, Employment
3
Literature Review
My review of the literature on why undocumented Latinos migrate to the U
.S and stay in terrible jobs revealed several recurrent themes: first, that ther
e is massive poverty in their country of origin; and second, that employment is
easier to achieve in the U.S. In this section, I will discuss what the literatur
e said of each theme in depth, as well as how legal status plays a role on why t
hey are prone to falling victims of bad jobs, in an effort of demonstrating my h
ypothesis.
Poverty
There was an approximated 11.9 million undocumented immigrants living in
the U.S in March 2008, most of which come from Latin American countries, Mexico
being the leading one (Passel and Cohn 2008). Valenzuela (2002) makes the claim
that due to
their background, level of poverty, and status in the U.S, Latinos end up being
the largest population working as day laborers. “The term, poverty, meaning indige
nce or neediness, connotes a lack of financial resources and other necessities o
f life“ (Davidson and Carr 2010). Valenzuela goes in depth about the disadvantage
theory and how this affects day laborer employment. The Disadvantage theory come
s from the understanding of a general disadvantage, where economics play a key r
ole. Latino immigrants do not have the economic means to help out their families
in their poor countries and so they come to the U.S.
Poverty and immigration is looked upon through the experiences of refuge
es and asylum seekers in Davidson and Carr’s study (2010). They urge us to analyze
poverty and social exclusion in hopes of better understanding the social implic
ations this causes and
4
the mental damage it can do to immigrants. The immigrants already feel forced to
migrate to the U.S and fight for refugee and asylum. We are being asked in this
study to look at the poverty pitfalls, and to find a way to stop this.
Employment
In a research article by Schur, Berk, Good, and Gardner (1999) they are
answering the question of where and why Latinos migrate to the U.S, and how many
of them are taking part of health services in the U.S. Their methodologies incl
ude (1) a survey of 533 undocumented Latino immigrants living in Los Angeles and
Fresno counties, (2) a companion study of undocumented Latinos, and (3) intervi
ews. Through their research, they found that about 80 percent of immigrants in L
os Angeles came from Mexico and that their primary reason for migration was empl
oyment (Schur et al. 1999). This article studied why Latinos come to the U.S, a
nd states that employment is the primary reason. The fact that they would travel
to another country to find a job demonstrates the desperation for employment, w
hich in turn, affects their decision of remaining at their jobs even under terri
ble conditions.
Why are They Prone to Bad Employment?
Seven factors were stated as to why Latino immigrants are disadvantaged
in the labor-market; (1) Lack of education, (2) Lack of English proficiency, (3)
Unauthorized status, (4) country of origin, (5) recency of arrival, (6) segrega
tion, and (7) race and gender discrimination (Valenzuela. 2002). In order to con
duct the study, Valenzuela surveyed 481 day laborers and used data from the Day
Labor Service. This study sought to unravel the answer of why immigrants end up
working as day laborers, a difficult job,
5
through the perspective of the disadvantage theory and the disadvantage in the l
abor-market. Day labor and sweatshops are popular harsh employments Latinos fall
into (Bonacich 1998). Day labor is most popular among men, and sweatshops among
women.
According to Bonacich, some of the ways immigrants get taken advantage of in the
sweatshop studied for the research is by: not getting paid vacations or paid si
ck leave, non existent medical insurance for herself or her family, poverty leve
l wages discrimination, sexual harrassment, and unsafe health conditions (Bonaci
ch 1998). Bonacich’s results indicated that there are mostly women working in the
garment industry, that Globalization plays a key role in sweatshops, and that L
atino immigrants are prone to this type of employment because of the lack of a p
olitical power among them, where they must “labor under apartheid-like system that
denies them basic civil rights” (Bonacich. 1998).
Legal status clearly plays a role in the kind of employment of latino im
migrants and on the wages they receive (Hallman, Greenman, and Farkas 2010; Tova
r 2009). In the
study by Hall, Greenman, and Farkas (2010) the concept of legal status itself ha
ving an impact on the wages of an individual is explored in a hierarchical linea
r modeling way. They took a look at four main groups: (1) documented Mexican imm
igrants, (2) undocumented Mexican immigrants, (3) U.S born Mexican-Americans, an
d (4) Native non-Latino whites. Hall et al. (2010) state that recently arrived i
mmigrants are prone to bad employment and usually get taken advantage of because
their certificates of education (if they have one) aren’t valued as much here in
the U.S, lack of English language, and lack of familiarity with worker’s rights an
d policies. In order to conduct this study, they
6
looked at information from panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participat
ion along with other surveys and statistics. Their sample group consisted of peo
ple who’s highest level of educational achievement was a high school diploma becau
se they wanted
to keep the focus on low-skilled workers. Their findings were that low skilled n
ative Mexican-Americans and whites were better off educationally and that the me
n have a better chance of higher employment status within this ethnicity than im
migrant males. They also concluded that despite common belief, undocumented and
documented Mexicans were quite similar. This information helps compare wages be
tween immigrants and American citizens. According to this study, there is a diff
erence between the groups in terms of wages, regardless of similar educational a
ttainment. This study showed the inequality and discrimination Latino immigrants
face within the labor market. The low wages they earn also help to provide evid
ence on my theory of Latino immigrants falling victim of dead-end jobs.
Tovar (2009) sought to know how legal status affects the lives of Latino
individuals who used to be undocumented, but are now legal residents. Through qu
alitative research design, Tovar went about her research conducting interviews t
o 14 individuals. The people being interviewed were asked about their personal l
ife, from employment, to family, etcetera and if their perspective on life had c
hanged with the change of their legal status. By looking at statistics, it was d
etermined in this research that undocumented Latinos make up about 6 million peo
ple in the labor market and that most of them come to the U.S on a pursuit of ha
ppiness, a better life, opportunities, to escape over population, and poverty le
vel conditions (Epenshade & Calhoun, 1993). This
7
research talks about why Latinos migrate to the U.S and it then focuses on their
lives in comparison to now. At the end of the research, (focusing more on the a
spect of this research that speaks out to my theory), it was concluded that afte
r migrating to the U.S,
the labor market was difficult to cope with. The pay was terrible, they worked l
ong hours and never got to spend time with their family. They described it as di
fficult and hateful.
The next step in order to determine my research is to consider the methods that
will helps us explore why Latino immigrants accept unfair employment in Los Ange
les through the lens of migration.
Methodology
Using interviews as my research method, I was able to plan an interview
with one Latino immigrant. I organized my interview by a set of questions, which
started general to get a conversation started, to more personal questions close
r related to my topic. With my planned set of questions, shown in the appendix,
I attempted to get information I needed in order to answer my proposal goal of t
aking a critical look at migration as a factor of the
decision of Latino immigrants to remain at a poor job in the U.S. By poor jobs,
I am attempting to look for Latino immigrants who work in a place where they are
mistreated. I am defining “mistreating” physically, or by things such as not receiv
ing benefits, being taken advantage of, sexually harassed, violated of health co
des, etcetera. The interview lasted approximately 52 minutes and it took place a
t a lounge on the campus of The University of California Santa Cruz during his l
eisure time. The interview was conducted in Spanish, a language that I, as well
as my subject, was native to. I took careful notes and listened to key terms tha
t helped guide my analyzing, and build my research. I was
8
unfortunately not able to record my interview.
Why Interviews?
For my research, I definitely feel like interviews was the best instrument to us
e. When
selecting my interview sample, I considered age, ethnicity, and employment the m
ost relevant for screening because these characteristics are most closely identi
fied with immigration and my research question. I wanted to interview a person o
f a higher age because of the knowledge and years of experience they would have
to share with me. Because my research is about Latino immigrants, I also went ab
out selecting possible subjects by their ethnicity. I decided to study Latinos b
ecause they are the fastest growing minority, and because I myself am Latina. La
stly, I only looked for Latinos who had a bad employment, because my research sp
ecifies bad jobs. The reason why I only look at Latinos in regards to their bad
employment is because the number of those with good employment is small. The maj
ority have terrible jobs, and my goal is to bring justice. My content analysis w
as driven by a desire to identify terms that alerted me to immigration
and harsh employment, because my goal is to bring justice to this issue.
In-depth detail of the conditions in the immigrant’s home country, of why
they came to the U.S, and of their current employment condition was needed. Deta
ils was key to why my selected method was interviews. Other methods would not ha
ve worked as well because of time restrictions, because I have a specified popul
ation and therefore it could not be at random, and because I needed a method tha
t would provide me with the details I needed to complete my study. A survey woul
d be my second choice, but it would be weak in the sense that I would not receiv
e detailed information. It would give me a
9
general idea of the answers, but it would not have been suffice to actually answ
er my question. Through the interview, I gained a sense of what immigrants go t
hrough, which in turn, helped me understand why they make the decisions they do.
Pre-test
The pre-test served as a preliminary collection of data and test of methods to
interview undocumented Latinos. Because of logistical constraints of conducting
my
pretest in Los Angeles, I conducted a pre-test in Santa Cruz, CA. Santa Cruz has
a
population of 54,593 and a Latino population of 9,491. The Latino population com
es second to the white population, which was perfect to my study because I had a
n
easier time finding people who I could interview. Because Santa Cruz is also a s
mall city,
it also eased my ability to find my targeted population. In Los Angeles, the Lat
ino
population also comes in second, following Whites. The difference of course, is
the
fact that Los Angeles is a bigger city, with a larger population. Having lived i
n Los
Angeles for 18 years, I have also experienced the large population of Latino imm
igrants
and having lived in Santa Cruz for three years, I have witnessed the mass popula
tion of
Latino immigrants and in both cities I have witnessed Latino immigrants working
under
terrible conditions. For the purpose of this study, Santa Cruz is comparable to
Los Angeles because of its large Latino immigration population and its similar c
ases of unfair employment. Both location and quality of the worker and the job a
re important factors in my research, and thus in my pre-test.
I targeted my population by limiting my search within the campus of UC S
anta
Cruz. My subject was not chosen at random. I had the subjects I wished to interv
iew in
10
mind. Choosing my subject at random would not work because my population is
specified; I can only interview Latino immigrants. If I would have done it at ra
ndom, different people would have given me their own answers and it would not ha
ve done my
research any good since a population chosen at random would not only consist of
Latino immigrants. As stated previously, I conducted an interview that approxima
ted to last 52 minutes, and it was done in Spanish. Conducting it in Spanish was
crucial because that way my subjects were not limited to their stories/answers.
They were able to expand and enlighten me with details about their experiences,
their status in the U.S, the reality of the their employment, all of which was
key information to my research. The oral questionnaire focused around their hist
ory, where they came from, what caused them to move to the U.S, and what their e
mployment conditions are. The aim of my pre-test is to illustrate the impact mig
ration makes on the decision to remain at bad jobs in the U.S.
Ethics, Strengths, and Weaknesses
As I presented my work, I kept in mind that my subject is considered to be a
vulnerable population. I could not take advantage of him in any way, I had to be
very
clear as to how he was to participate in my experiment, and I could not exploit
them in any sense. By exploit, I am referring to my limitations of what I can as
k him and what I can publicly publish that he shared with me. This is another re
ason why I believe conducting the interview in his native language, Spanish, was
crucial. Because he is a part of a vulnerable population, it is my ethical duty
to assure that he be informed at all times.
I had to be mindful of the questions I ask. I also had to be aware that I could
not ask
something that would jeopardize or put him at risk of anything. I also informed
11
my subjects that the information collected was solely for the purpose of my stud
y, and otherwise will remain confidential. No data I collected will be used outs
ide of the research project. It will not in any way be revealed to an authority
that may complicate his
personal living situation.
Because the interview was conducted at his workplace, I also was mindful
of the fact that he could only meet with me during his break. I did not, and co
uld not abuse his time, and once the break was over I was forced to put an end t
o my interview. If for some reason, the break time would not have been enough ti
me for me to go through with the interview, I had planned scheduling a second me
eting. Fortunately, however, this was not the case as I was able to gather all m
y data in one session. Along with this, if I think I should keep the data collec
ted after the research is complete, I will ask my subjects for permission.
Although I will not be harming my subjects in any way, because of the si
mple fact
that my interviewee is considered a member of a vulnerable population, I have at
tached in
the appendix my Institutional Review Board form.
A weakness identified in my methodology is the small pool of interviewee
s. Due to a constraint in time, I was only able to interview one person, therefo
re I cannot say my findings are representational of the population, but neverthe
less, my findings are meaningful. A second weakness is the reaction some people
have to interviews. Because I am actually present, and because subjects know the
y are not anonymous, it can cause people to answer dishonestly or in a misleadin
g way. People can become embarrassed or timid, so they turn to dishonesty. I ask
ed questions such as “Why do you remain at your
12
job, regardless of its unfairness? Or “Do you know why you don’t receive benefits?“ Th
ese questions may make my subject feel as if he is not intelligent, or is being
taken advantaged of by his boss, and therefore can bring up feelings of embarras
sment or
timidness. A third weakness is that my research presents one bias; I looked for
subjects based on the kind of employment I witnessed them in. I wanted to resear
ch Latinos in bad jobs, so the few that did have a good position at The Universi
ty, I did not consider. This bias creates a limitation on my research.
Similar to what I have stated previously, a strength of conducting inter
views as my method of getting about answering my research question, is the fact
that interviews make room for details. Details are crucial for the purpose of my
research because I am trying to get my subject to share personal experiences wi
th me, something I cannot get to the same extent as conducting surveys would get
, for example. Interviews seem rational for this type of research.
Pretest
As mentioned before, I interviewed undocumented Latinos at the Universit
y of California Santa Cruz. Because of time constrictions, I was only able to in
terview one person. My subject was informed of the procedures in Spanish and agr
eed to participate out of his own will.
The interview took place on a lounge on campus. His name and identity wi
ll be kept confidential, as agreed, so when I have to refer to him, I will be us
ing the pseudonym of Rigoberto. Through our interview, I was able to achieve key
information that I needed in order to attempt to get closer to answering my que
stion. My theory behind why
13
undocumented Latinos accepted and remained at unfair employments in the U.S lied
behind the same reasons of migration. I believed undocumented Latinos stayed at
terrible jobs because they did not want to return to the conditions of their or
iginal countries, or
other reasons as to why they come to the U.S. While I cannot claim that my inter
view proves any theory to be true or false, I can say it brought up a different
idea that I had not considered.
Through this interview, I concluded that migration factors are not the o
nly reason why Latinos decide to stay at their jobs. They do play a key role in
their decision, but from Rigoberto, I found out that attachment is another major
reason why they stay. When asked why he stays in the U.S, Rigoberto responded, “I
stayed because of my family, work, and because I have a home.” More importantly,
when I asked why his decision to remain at his job and not go search for another
one, he responded, “Because they give me a bit more money than what I would be re
ceiving in El Salvador and because I feel
comfortable. I know the people, the managers, there are many reasons. I am accus
tomed to it because I am familiar with everything. There is an equal balance of
good and bad. We are all a team, it is not that bad here. It does not matter whe
re you work, as long as you are comfortable.” I am sure Rigoberto’s case is one of a
million. Undocumented Latinos remain where they are at because they become atta
ched to the families they build here, to the homes they earn with their hard wor
k, and they remain at their jobs because of the bit of money they make, the frie
ndships they make at work, and because they become accustomed to their employmen
t. Again, this is not a fact, but it is my findings. These results suggest that
attachment, humbleness, and habit factors help explain undocumented
14
Latinos accepting and remaining at cruel employments in the U.S.
My questions were effective in prompting conversation. My subject was a
bit timid, so I did have to ask him to ellaborate on answers or sometimes I foun
d myself re-
wording questions or adding to my questions so that I could get more information
out of him, since he had the tendency to give me short sweet answers. When I ad
ded to my questions, I was careful not to set up any biases, so that way, my sub
ject would tell me what he wanted to tell me and not what I wanted to hear. Whil
e I asked my questions, I was not trying to necessarily prove my theory, but ins
tead was trying to find information that would lead us to the possible truth, an
d my findings were extremely valuable. Fortunately, my subject was comfortable a
nswering the questions posed, however, he decided to talk about his second emplo
yment at a restaurant here in Santa Cruz instead of his employment with the Univ
ersity because of fear. Even though I explained everything would remain anonymou
s and nothing said would jeopardize his employment, I approved
his decision because I wanted him to be comfortable. His employment at the resta
urant was still relevant to my study so it was not an obstacle.
Originally, I wanted to interview two to three undocumented Latinos for
my research. After some discussion and after interviewing my subject, I realized
how unrealistic this was going to be, at this time. My interview, and the analy
zing of my results was extremely time consuming and I figured, one interview wou
ld be best. My subject was planned, meaning his selection was not at random. It
is a person who I always talk to on campus, and who had agreed to my interview d
ays before it actually took place so I did not have any issues with my methods f
or finding participants. Unfortunately, I
15
was not able to record my interviews but, I wrote careful notes with bullet poin
ts of the major points with all his answers.
Conclusions
This research paper attempted to support the theory that immigration fac
tors influence Latino immigrants to make the decision to put up with their bad e
mployment and its unfair treatment. While many believe they stay for the obvious
factors of escaping the impoverished conditions of their countries, for economi
c opportunity, and to achieve the American Dream, my interview brought up anothe
r theory. The literature examined supported my theory of immigration factors pla
ying key roles. We found out that most articles claimed Latinos migrate to the U
.S because of poverty, and for employment opportunities. It was also discussed i
n the literature review that Latino immigrants are prone to accepting unfair emp
loyment because of a lack of political party among them (Bonacich 1998). Accordi
ng to Hall et al. (2010) and Tovar (2009), legal status is a major influence on
the type of employment Latinos receive, as well as to why they choose to stay re
gardless of the conditions. Through my own research and interview, however, the
new idea of attachment or familiarity got introduced. Another idea I briefly men
tion, but nevertheless is important to note, is that the U.S is extremely differ
ent to the immigrant’s country of origin and like Rigoberto stated, he did not wan
t to stay. Immigrants can feel forced to stay in the U.S, simply because they do
not have the option to go back. I am sure that if it was ok to travel back and
forth across the U.S and their country of origin, immigrants would come work her
e for a while and leave once their crops were growing
16
or while they had business at their small businesses. By creating borders, immig
rants are forced to choose; either the U.S or there country of origin.
While again, I cannot say I have proved any theory to be true or false,
I have gathered valuable data that can assist similar theories. My only real big
goal with this
research is to voice those immigrants who have been silenced. I want to raise an
awareness to an epidemic that rises more everyday and that touches the lives of
everyone daily.
References
Barker, Karlyn. 1988. “Newcomers to U.S Become Victims of Exploitation: Fears can
Make Them Prey for the Unscrupulous.” The Washington Post.
Bloomekatz, Rachel. 2007. “Rethinking Immigration Status Discrimination and
Exploitation in the Low-Wage Workplace.” UCLA Law Review. 54.6 (2007):
1963-2010.
Bonacich, Edna. 2011. "Latino Immigrant Workers in the Los Angeles Apparel Indus
try." New Political Science 20.4 (1998): 459.
Davidson, Graham R., Carr, Stuart C. 2010. “Forced Migration, Social Exclusion, an
d Poverty: Introduction.” Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology.
Donato, Katharine M., Aguilera, Michael., and Wakabayashi, Chizuko. 2005. “Immigra
tion Policy and Employment Conditions of US Immigrants from Mexico, Nicaragua, a
nd the Dominican Republic.” International Immigration. 43.5: 5-29.
Garni, Alisa. 2010. “Mechanisms of Migration: Poverty and social Instability in th
e Post War Expansion of Central American Migration to the United States.” Journal
of Immigrant and Refugee Studies. 8 (3): 316-338
Hall, Matthew., Greenman, Emily., and Farkas, George. 2010. “Legal Status and Wage
Disparities for Mexican Immigrants.” Social Forces, 89(2), 491-513.
“Illegal Immigration from Mexico.” U.S Immigration Support. Retrieved May 2, 2011.
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/illegal-immigration-from-
mexico.html
Lindstrom, David P., Lauster, Nathaniel. 2009. “Local Economic Opportunity: Labor
Immigration Theory.” Social Forces
Schur, L. Claudia., Berk, L. Marc., Good, D. Cynthia., Gardner, N. Eric. 1999. “Ca
lifornia’s Undocumented Latino Immigrants: A Report on access to health care ser
vices.
Tovar, Lidia. 2009. “Perceived Life Satisfaction of Previously Undocumented Latino
Immigrants.” Masters Thesis, Department of Social Work, California State
University, Long Beach.
Valenzuela, Simon. 2002. “Working on the Margins in Metropolitan Los Angeles: Immi
grants in Day-Labor Work“. Migraciones Internacionales, 1(2), 5-29.
Warren, Mazek F. 2005. “Unemployment and the Efficiency of migration: The Case of
Laborers.” New Political Science
Appendix A
Revised IRB Form

Appendix B/C
Data Collection/Revised Questions
Me: Where were you born?
Interviewee: I was born in the Department of San Miguel. My ethnicity is Salvado
ran.
Me: When did you come to the U.S?
Interviewee: I came to the U.S in 1982
Me: Why did you come to the U.S?
Interviewee: I came to the U.S because of the Economic State of my country. My c
ountry was too poor, and there was a war going on at that time. I also wanted to
better myself in this country. I wanted to help my family. Thank God I was at l
east able to come to this country to acquire debt! (as he laughs)
Me: Where do you work?
Interviewee: I work at a restaurant in the city of Santa Cruz.
**Because his answer was so short, I added: How did you acquire your job, what a
re your major duties, and how long have you worked at this job? He answered:
“I acquired this job through my older brother who’s been working here longer
than I have. I began working here… (thinks for a while)..like in 1987 so I have a
bout 24 years working here. I was really young when I started to work here even
though I still am” he jokes. “I work in the kitchen cooking on some shifts, and on m
y double shift days, I clean the restaurant.”
Me: How many hours do you work?
Interviewee: I work eighty hours in two weeks
Me: How much do you get paid?
Interviewee: I get paid 11.50 the hour.
Me: How are you treated at work?
Interviewee: Good. The managers, my work friends are all very calm. They really
do not put too much pressure on us, only when it is busy. Summer is the worst ti
me of the year, when it is cold, it is less stressful. Other than that, we just
get things done.
Me: Do You receive any benefits? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
Interviewee: No. Nothing. I do not receive a single thing, not even after 24 yea
rs of working here. I think this is due to the fact that it is a restaurant and
not a huge company. I think the owner must not make that much money, he must not
be rich, and he probably cannot afford giving us any benefits. But I don’t know h
onestly, we just do not receive anything. No benefits, no insurance, no extra pa
y for overtime, no breaks, no vacations. Nothing, but oh well.
Me: If you could go back to your home country, would you go back?
Interviewee: I would go back for about two or three months if I could, but not t
o live there permanently anymore. It is way too violent, dangerous, there is no
work to be found, there exists too much evil, too much poverty. I used to want t
o return. It is too bad they force us to stay by making it illegal to come back
and forth. At first, this lifestyle was too different to what I was used to. I w
as scared and I wanted to return. Everything was so unfamiliar. But now, I do no
t have that illusion anymore.
Me: Why do you stay in the U.S?
Interviewee: I stayed because of my family, work, and because I have a home.
Me: Why do you stay in this employment?
Interviewee: Because they give me a bit more money than I would be receiving in
El Salvador, and because I feel comfortable. I know the people, the managers, th
ere are many reasons. I am accustomed to it because I am familiar with everythin
g. There is an equal balance of good and bad. Everywhere you look, it will be ba
d, there will be bad things. We are all a team, it is not that bad here. I also
do not have an education so you have to settle with what you get. It does not ma
tter where you work, as long as you are comfortable. I also do not feel mistreat
ed.”
Me: Thank You so much for your time. It is much appreciated.
Interviewee: It was my pleasure, you know I am here to help in any way. Good luc
k and keep doing what you do. Study hard so that you do not end up like us.